Re: Fairholme v. U.S. 13-465-0323
|
Judge Sweeney entered an order on Fri., May 13, approving the agreement between Ms. Robinson and the government. Because the government consented to unsealing the documents Ms. Robinson wanted, she withdrew her Motion (Doc. 321) on Thurs., May 19. Copies of those two documents are attached to this e-mail message.13-465-0324
|
Re: Fairholme v. U.S. 13-465-0325
|
Judge Sweeney entered an Order directing the government to provide her with unredacted printed copies of the documents Fairholme asked her to compel the government to produce six months ago. A copy of that Order, entered on Fri., May 20, is attached to this e-mail message.
For our reference, Fairholme’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 270) was filed on Nov. 23, 2015, and a redacted copy of that Motion (Doc. 272) was docketed on Dec. 7, 2015. The government opposed (Doc. 284) Fairholme’s request on Jan. 21, 2016, and a recated copy of that objection (Doc. 301) was docketed on Feb. 19, 2016. |
Re: Fairholme v. U.S
|
Under seal, Judge Sweeney issued her Order (Doc. 326) determining whether the Protective Order was violated on Fri., May 20. Judge Sweeney has asked the parties to submit a joint status report today advising her if the order should remain sealed.
|
Re: Fairholme v. U.S. – 13-465-032813-465-0327
|
In the Motion (Doc. 327) attached to this e-mail message, the government asks Judge Sweeney to clarify her May 20 Order (Doc. 325). Specifically, the government wants to know if the Affidavits previously submitted by Christopher H. Dickerson (Doc. 301 at A58-A67) and David R. Pearl (Doc. 301 at A68-A86) are sufficient for her to determine if the deliberative process privilege applies to various documents Fairholme wants. If Judge Sweeney wants more, the government asks for more time to supply additional affidavits.
In the Order (Doc. 328) attached to this e-mail message, Judge Sweeney tells the government (i) she wants copies of all unredacted Fairholme wants today; (ii) additional affidavits about the deliberative process privilege are probably unnecessary; and (iii) additional affidavits are necessary if the government is continuing to invoke the presidential communications privilege. |
Following the government’s agreement in Fairholme v. U.S. to unseal various documents at Ms. Robinson’s behest, Perry and Fairholme delivered copies of 15 of those documents to the D.C. Circuit together with a request to take judicial notice of those items. A copy of Perry and Fairholme’s request is attached to this e-mail message. 14-5243-1615013
Robinson v. FHFA – 15-00109-004715-00109-0048
|
Following the government’s agreement in Fairholme v. U.S. to unseal various documents at Ms. Robinson’s behest, Ms. Robinson and the government asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to unseal Ms. Robinson’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) and her Consolidated Reply (Doc. 30) to FHFA and Treasury’s Motions to Dismiss. Copies of that request (Doc. 47), filed on Mon., May 23, and the Court’s Order (Doc. 48), entered on Wed., May 25, are attached to this e-mail message. Copies of the unsealed documents follow in two separate e-mail transmissions.
|